---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 27, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 41

                             Headlines


ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeals From Augustus Case Rulings Consolidated
ABM INDUSTRIES: No Schedule Yet for Oral Argument in Bucio Appeal
ALCO STORES: Faces Class Action Over Argonne Merger
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Shipping Charges
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settled Two Antitrust Actions in December

APPLE INC: Appeals E-Book Antitrust Suit Ruling
BMW: Recalls 662 Motorcycles Due to Side Stand Switch Defect
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Judge Certifies Halibut Fishermen's Class Action
BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL: Court Awards Atty. Fees in "Birge" Suit
CELESTICA INC: Ontario Superior Court Certifies Class Action

CLARK COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Action Over Drug Court Program
CRANE CO: Jurors View Deposition of Deceased Mesothelioma Victim
EASTMAN FOOTWEAR: Recalls Coleman Runestone Children's Shoes
ETHICON INC: Judge Tosses Bellwether Pelvic Mesh Product Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Judge Tosses Hotel Room Rate Parity Class Action

EXPEDIA INC: Travel Cos. to Pay $60+MM if Tax Suit Appeal Fails
FAIRWAY GROUP: Bernard M. Gross Law Firm Files Class Action
FEDEX CORPORATION: Court Heard Oral Argument on Kansas Wage Cases
FGL SPORTS: Recalls Children's Upper Outerwear Hoodies & Jackets
FORD MOTOR: Product Liability Plaintiffs Can Seek Retrial

FORGE GROUP: Bentham IMF to Fund Shareholder Class Action
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: California Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action
IEC ELECTRONICS: Responded to SEC Probe & Shareholder Suit
LOUISIANA: Contaminated Building Suit Gets Class Action Status
MONITRONICS INT'L: "Mey" Bid to Compel Discovery Approved

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: June Trial Set in Student-Athletes' Class Action
NAVISTAR: Recalls 64 Trucks Due to Brake Issues
NAVISTAR: Recalls 47 Durastar and Terrastar Trucks
NEW JERSEY: Bridgegate Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 16,550 Consumer Off-Road Vehicles

RICK'S NY: Court Has Jurisdiction Under CAFA Over NYLL Claims
ROUSE'S ENTERPRISES: Insurers Obtain Favorable Ruling
ROYAL BANK: Settles MBS Class Action for $275 Million
SPI ELECTRICITY: Victoria Residents Ignored Warnings, Court Told
SUN VALLEY: Recalls Shredded Cheese Products Due to Listeria

TREX COMPANY: Received Final Court OK to Settle Suit for $8.25MM
U.S. EQUITIES: District Court Dismisses "Snyder" Suit
VCG HOLDING: PT's Exotic Dancers Mulls Suit Over Tips & Wages
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Placed $61.2MM Settlement in Escrow on Nov. 5
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Court Appointed Selz Funds as Lead Plaintiffs

WATERSTONE MORTGAGE: Motion to Reopen "Herrington" Suit Denied
WBS WHOLESALE: Recalls AHS Mini-Muffins Due to Undeclared Eggs
WESTIN HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
WILLIAM PRYM: Atty Fees & Costs Okayed in Fasteners Antitrust Suit

* Bill to Set Up Review Panel in Medical Malpractice Cases Passed
* NASDAQ, NYSE File Amicus Brief in Favor of Arbitration
* Recall of Children's Products Ineffective, Report Shows


                             *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeals From Augustus Case Rulings Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to ABM Industries Incorporated's Form 10-K filed on
dated December 18, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013, a U.S.
federal court has agreed to consolidate the Company's appeals on
the Superior Court's decisions both with respect to the Augustus
case and with respect to the award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company states: "The Augustus case is a certified class action
involving allegations that we violated certain state laws relating
to rest breaks. On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for summary judgment on the rest break claim, which sought damages
in the amount of $103.1 million, and we filed a motion for
decertification of the class. On July 6, 2012, the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County (the "Superior Court"), heard
plaintiffs' motion for damages on the rest break claim and our
motion to decertify the class. On July 31, 2012, the Superior
Court denied our motion and entered judgment in favor of
plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $89.7 million. This
amount did not include plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. We filed a
notice of appeal on August 29, 2012. The plaintiffs filed three
separate motions for attorneys' fees. One motion sought attorneys'
fees from the common fund. (The common fund refers to the
approximately $89.7 million judgment entered in favor of the
plaintiffs.) The other two motions sought attorneys' fees from us
in an aggregate amount of approximately $12.4 million. On October
12, 2012, we filed oppositions to the two fee motions seeking
attorneys' fees from us. On January 14, 2013, the Superior Court
heard all three fee motions and it granted plaintiffs' fee motion
with respect to the common fund in full. The Superior Court denied
one fee motion in its entirety and reduced the other fee motion to
approximately $4.5 million.

"We have appealed the Superior Court's rulings, and on April 30,
2013, the Court agreed to consolidate the appeals. We strongly
disagree with the decisions of the Superior Court both with
respect to the underlying case and with respect to the award of
attorneys' fees and costs. We firmly believe that we have complied
with applicable law."

ABM Industries Incorporated (ABM) is a provider of integrated
facility solutions. The Company provides end-to-end integrated
facilities management services to thousands of commercial,
governmental, industrial, institutional, residential, and retail
client facilities in hundreds of cities, primarily throughout the
United States. ABM's capabilities include facility services,
energy solutions, commercial cleaning, maintenance and repair,
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical,
landscaping, parking and security, through stand-alone or
integrated solutions. ABM delivers custom facility solutions to
sites across multiple industries from healthcare, government and
education to high-tech, aviation and manufacturing. The Company
operates in four segments: Janitorial, Facility Solutions, Parking
and Security. In November 2012, the Company acquired HHA Services.
In November 2012, the Company's ABM Building Services acquired the
operations of Calvert-Jones.


ABM INDUSTRIES: No Schedule Yet for Oral Argument in Bucio Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated reported in its Form 10-K filed on
dated December 18, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013, that oral
argument relating to plaintiffs' appeal on the Bucio case class
certification issues has not been scheduled as of December 18,
2013.

According to ABM, "The Bucio case is a purported class action
involving allegations that we failed to track work time and
provide breaks. On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing
on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of
that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify
the class. On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
reconsider, which was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the
class certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying
lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal. On August 30, 2012,
the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on the class
certification issues. We filed our responsive brief on November
15, 2012. Oral argument relating to the appeal has not been
scheduled."

ABM Industries Incorporated (ABM) is a provider of integrated
facility solutions. The Company provides end-to-end integrated
facilities management services to thousands of commercial,
governmental, industrial, institutional, residential, and retail
client facilities in hundreds of cities, primarily throughout the
United States. ABM's capabilities include facility services,
energy solutions, commercial cleaning, maintenance and repair,
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical,
landscaping, parking and security, through stand-alone or
integrated solutions. ABM delivers custom facility solutions to
sites across multiple industries from healthcare, government and
education to high-tech, aviation and manufacturing. The Company
operates in four segments: Janitorial, Facility Solutions, Parking
and Security. In November 2012, the Company acquired HHA Services.
In November 2012, the Company's ABM Building Services acquired the
operations of Calvert-Jones.


ALCO STORES: Faces Class Action Over Argonne Merger
---------------------------------------------------
Alco Stores, Inc., is a defendant in a class action challenging
the Company's actions to enter into the Merger Agreement under
which Argonne Capital Group, LLC was to purchase all of Alco's
outstanding shares.

According to Alco's Form 10-Q filed on dated December 18, 2013,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended November 3, 2013, Advanced Advisors, a Company
stockholder, on September 5, 2013, filed a class action petition
in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas (case no.
13C001007) citing, among other parties, the Company and the
Company's directors, Royce Winsten, Terrence Babilla, Dennis
Logue, Lolan Mackey, and Richard Wilson, as defendants. The
petition challenges the defendants' actions in causing the Company
to enter into the Merger Agreement under which Argonne Capital
Group, LLC was to purchase all of the outstanding shares of the
Company. The allegations against the defendants include breaches
of fiduciary duties and the aiding and abetting of breaches of
fiduciary duties. The amount of the damages is unspecified. The
Company intends to vigorously defend itself.

On September 23, 2013, Paul Hughes, an individual Company
stockholder, filed a class action petition in the District Court
of Shawnee County, Kansas (case no. 13C001096) citing, among other
parties, the Company and the Company's directors, Royce Winsten,
Terrence Babilla, Dennis Logue, Lolan Mackey, and Richard Wilson,
as defendants. The petition challenges the defendants' actions in
causing the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement under which
Argonne Capital Group, LLC was to purchase all of the outstanding
shares of the Company. The allegations against the defendants
include breaches of fiduciary duties and the aiding and abetting
of breaches of fiduciary duties. The amount of the damages is
unspecified. There is a dismissal hearing for this matter
scheduled for January 10, 2014. The Company intends to vigorously
defend itself.

On September 27, 2013, Jeffery R. Geygan, an individual Company
stockholder, filed a class action petition in the District Court
of Shawnee County, Kansas (case no. 13C001120) citing, among other
parties, the Company and the Company's directors, Royce Winsten,
Terrence Babilla, Dennis Logue, Lolan Mackey, and Richard Wilson,
as defendants. The petition challenges the defendants' actions in
causing the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement under which
Argonne Capital Group, LLC was to purchase all of the outstanding
shares of the Company. The allegations against the defendants
include breaches of fiduciary duties and the aiding and abetting
of breaches of fiduciary duties. The amount of the damages is
unspecified. The parties have filed a joint motion to consolidate
this case and the case filed by Advanced Advisors. The Company
intends to vigorously defend itself.

Alco Stores, Inc. is engaged in the business of retailing general
merchandise throughout the central portion of the United States of
America through a range of department store outlets. The Company's
ALCO stores offer a range of merchandise consisting of
approximately 35,000 items, including automotive, commodities,
crafts, domestics, electronics, furniture, hardware, health and
beauty aids, housewares, jewelry, ladies', men's and children's
apparel and shoes, pre-recorded music and video, sporting goods,
seasonal items, stationery and toys. As of February 3, 2013, the
Company operated 217 stores in 23 states located in mostly smaller
communities in the central United States. The stores average
approximately 21,000 square feet of selling space, with an
additional 5,000 square feet utilized for merchandise processing,
temporary storage and administration.


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Shipping Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that a member of
Amazon.com Inc.'s paid service that guarantees free shipping to
its customers filed a putative class action on Feb. 19 in
Washington federal court, accusing an affiliate of Amazon of
encouraging third-party vendors to hide shipping charges in their
prices.

Cemal Ekin says he has paid $79 a year for his Amazon Prime
membership solely for the free shipping he was promised in return,
but the company told the third-party vendors participating in the
Fulfillment by Amazon program to raise their prices by the amount
they would normally have charged for shipping, according to the
suit.

The price-raising policy hides shipping costs in the listed prices
of the items online, which is unfair to Prime members who are
paying for a membership that grants them free shipping, Mr. Ekin
said in the suit.

"Because Amazon induced FBA vendors to include shipping charges in
the prices of FBA Prime-eligible items, Dr. Ekin and other Prime
program members did not receive the promised benefits," Mr. Ekin
wrote in the Feb. 19 complaint.

The sole benefit of having a Prime account before February 2011,
according to Mr. Ekin, was guaranteed free shipping on all orders.
Since then, Amazon has added other benefits, including a streaming
video service, for Prime users.

Third-party vendors can sell their goods on Amazon.com through
Fulfillment by Amazon, a service through which Amazon stores goods
in its warehouses, fills orders, boxes them and ships them, for a
fee paid by the vendor, according to the suit.

Amazon takes a cut of what the vendor charges in each transaction,
Mr. Ekin alleged.  To boost its take on each purchase, Amazon
asked third-party vendors to tack on what they would have charged
in shipping to the price of the goods, Mr. Ekin said in the
complaint.

The suit was lodged on Feb. 19 against Amazon Services LLC, a
Nevada-based unit of the website, the world's largest online
retailer.

Mr. Ekin is seeking to represent a class of Prime members -- a
group he contends has more than 1 million members -- who were
forced to pay shipping costs that were hidden in the list price of
the third-party items on Amazon.com, according to the complaint.
He's seeking class certification and damages for claims that
include breach of contract and violations of Washington state
consumer protection laws.

Mr. Ekin is represented by Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore.

The case is Dr. A. Cemal Ekin v. Amazon Services LLC, case number
2:14-cv-00244, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settled Two Antitrust Actions in December
-----------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 8-K dated December 19, 2013, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 19, 2013, American
Express Company announced that it has agreed to settle two
putative anti-trust class actions filed in 2004 and 2005 by U.S.
merchants, who challenged certain terms of the company's Card
acceptance agreements. The settlement agreement will address
certain merchant concerns, while helping to ensure that American
Express Card Members are treated fairly at the point of sale. It
will also limit the Company's exposure to future legal claims.

The first lawsuit, In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules
Antitrust Litigation, challenges the Non-Discrimination Provisions
in the company's merchant contracts. The lawsuit dates back to
2006 and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The second lawsuit, In re Marcus
Corporation, challenges American Express' Honor All Cards
Provisions. This lawsuit dates back to 2004 and is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Under the terms of the agreement:

     * Merchants continue to agree that if they decide to
surcharge their customers using credit or charge cards, any
surcharge on American Express Card transactions would be no more
than the surcharge on credit or charge card products issued on
competing networks.

     * Similarly, merchants agree that if they surcharge customers
paying with prepaid or debit cards, they would not surcharge
American Express prepaid cards more than any competing prepaid or
debit cards issued on competing networks.

     * Merchants would be allowed to surcharge charge and credit
cards, even if they do not surcharge prepaid and debit card
transactions.

     * Merchants would agree not to pursue further legal
challenges to American Express' Non-Discrimination and Honor All
Cards Provisions for at least 10 years after these changes are
implemented.

     * American Express would agree to pay reasonable attorneys'
fees for both cases up to a maximum total of $75 million, as
approved by the Court.

     * If merchants choose to pursue individual lawsuits or
arbitrations for alleged damages relating to the Non-
Discrimination and Honor All Cards Provisions, they would agree
that any potential recovery would be limited to damages for the
period prior to the implementation of the changes.

The company's card acceptance agreements will continue to require
merchants to honor all American Express cards with the exception
of U.S. issued traditional debit cards, should the company or its
affiliates or partners decide to issue them at a future date. The
agreements will also continue to prohibit merchants from steering
customers away from using American Express cards to competing
products.

The changes to the Non-Discrimination and Honor All Cards
Provisions will take effect after the resolution of any appeals to
the final approval of the settlement, unless voluntarily
implemented by American Express at an earlier date.

If the settlement terms are approved by the Court, all merchants
who accept American Express cards in the United States will be
bound by the changes to American Express' Non-Discrimination and
Honor All Cards Provisions and by the agreement not to make any
future claims relating to these contract provisions for a period
of at least 10 years after the changes are implemented.

Tim Heine, Managing Counsel of American Express, said: "We believe
the terms of the settlement continue to balance the interests of
Card Members and merchants.

"While the modification of our contract provisions gives merchants
some additional flexibility, many merchants continue to believe,
as we do, that surcharging is fundamentally anti-consumer. Few
merchants have taken advantage of earlier opportunities to
surcharge out of concern that it could risk alienating customers,
and drive them to patronize competitors who do not surcharge.

"Merchants choose to accept American Express because we help them
reach millions of customers who value the convenience, rewards,
and world class service that our payment products provide. Unlike
Visa and MasterCard, we do not have market power. We operate a
competitive, dynamic business with a unique business model.
Resolving these lawsuits will allow us to stay focused on helping
merchants build their business and strengthen their customer
relationships."

American Express will reimburse the class plaintiffs' costs of
notifying merchants of the settlement up to $2 million and will
provide an additional $2 million fund for plaintiffs to
communicate to merchants about the terms of the settlement.

The settlement agreement has been submitted to the Court for
approval. Costs associated with the settlement will be recognized
in the fourth quarter.

American Express has been named in a number of separate merchant
cases.

American Express Company is a global service company. The
Company's range of products and services includes Charge and
credit card products, Expense management products and services,
Consumer and business travel services, Stored value products, such
as travelers cheques and other prepaid products, Network services,
merchant acquisition and processing, servicing and settlement, and
point-of-sale, marketing and information products and services for
merchants, and fee services, including market and trend analyses
and related consulting services, fraud prevention services, and
the design of customized customer loyalty and rewards programs. It
operates in four segments: U.S. Card Services, International Card
Services, Global Commercial Services (GCS) and Global Network &
Merchant Services (GNMS). American Express and its principal
operating subsidiary, American Express Travel Related Services
Company, Inc. (TRS), are bank holding companies.


APPLE INC: Appeals E-Book Antitrust Suit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------
Deepti Hajela, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Apple filed papers on Feb. 25 telling a federal appeals court in
New York that a judge's finding it violated antitrust laws by
manipulating electronic book prices "is a radical departure" from
modern antitrust law that will "chill competition and harm
consumers" if allowed to stand.

Apple filed its formal written arguments before the Second U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the appeals court to overturn the
judgment in Apple's favor, or grant a new trial in front of a
different judge.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote concluded last year that the
Cupertino, Calif.-based company colluded with book publishers in
2010 to raise electronic book prices.  She appointed Washington
lawyer Michael Bromwich as monitor for two years after concluding
Apple was not doing enough to ensure it no longer violated
antitrust laws.

Apple's papers filed on Feb. 25 refuted the antitrust finding, and
said its entrance into the e-book market "kick-started competition
in a highly concentrated market, delivering higher output, lower
price levels, and accelerated innovation."

Apple had also filed a request that the monitor's work be
suspended until the appeals court decides whether he was correctly
appointed.  A three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled earlier
this month that he can once again take up his work but under the
limits decided upon by Cote.


BMW: Recalls 662 Motorcycles Due to Side Stand Switch Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorcycle
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           662
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014045
TC ID number:             2014045

On certain motorcycles, the side stand switch could malfunction.
This could result cause the engine to stall while riding resulting
in a loss of motive power, potentially increasing the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or property damage.

Dealers will replace the side stand switch.

Affected products:

  Maker     Model             Model year(s) affected
  -----     -----             ----------------------
  BMW       R1200GS              2013, 2013
  BMW       R1200R               2013
  BMW       F800GS               2013
  BMW       C650GT               2013
  BMW       F800GS ADVENTURE     2013
  BMW       F800GT               2013
  BMW       F700GS               2013


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Judge Certifies Halibut Fishermen's Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keven Drews, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that more
than 400 commercial fishermen in British Columbia have been given
the go-ahead to sue the federal government as part of a class-
action lawsuit sparked by a halibut-management strategy.

B.C. Supreme Court Judge Susan Griffin certified what she called a
"novel" lawsuit, which was launched against Fisheries and Oceans
Canada by fisherman Barry Burnell.

"To my knowledge to date there has been no authority awarding a
fisher damages or restitution of fees paid by the fisher under one
of these fisheries management schemes," Judge Griffin said in her
written ruling, posted online on Feb. 19.

Her written ruling states that under the program, the Fisheries
Department allegedly held back 10 per cent of the total allowable
catch and assigned it to the Pacific Halibut Management Society.
The society then resold shares to fishermen at higher costs and
used the money to fund fisheries management activities.

The ruling said the strategy began in 2001 but was discontinued in
2006 after the Federal Court found a similar practice on the East
Coast was illegal.

None of the allegations have been proven in court, and Fisheries
and Oceans Canada declined to comment on the certification because
the case is still before the courts.

Meldon Ellis, one of the lawyers representing Mr. Burnell, said he
had not yet spoken to his client about the ruling.

"We're seeking a return of the additional funds that were paid by
the fishers during that period," he said, adding it's hard to
estimate an average cost because each fisherman had a different
quota.

Still, he said the additional fees probably represented a 10- to
15 per cent premium over what the fishermen would have paid had
the strategy not been in place.

Mr. Ellis also estimated the amount of additional fees generated
by the strategy and remitted to the Fisheries Department each year
was C$1 million.

The number of fishermen in the class action is based on court
pleadings and affidavits, which note more than 400 people held
licenses similar to the one held by Mr. Burnell.

Not included in the class are license holders who were also
directors of the society, First Nations fishermen who held a
different license and the society, which also held a license.

Mr. Ellis said no date has yet been set for a trial.


BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL: Court Awards Atty. Fees in "Birge" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
LISA BIRGE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL, P.S., LLO, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 8:13CV8, (D. Neb.) is before the Court on the
motion of the plaintiff, Lisa Birge, for an award of attorneys'
fees in the amount of $40,835.33.

This was a class action for violations of the Fair Debt Practices
and Collection Act (FDCPA) and the Nebraska Consumer Protection
Act (NCPA). The action was brought against the Brumbaugh &
Quandahl law firm, its employees, and Midland Funding, which was a
customer of the law firm.  Ultimately, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement which resolved this action. The agreement
provides that the Defendants would "pay reasonable attorney fees
and costs as the Court may award for prosecution of a 'successful
action' under 15 U.S.C. 1692k".  Although the settlement releases
Midland from Birge's claims, it does not require Midland to
contribute to Birge's monetary award or for Midland to alter its
business practices. Also, the settlement releases all defendants
from NCPA claims.

In a Feb. 20, 2014 Memorandum Opinion available at
http://is.gd/CmGErWfrom Leagle.com, Senior District Judge Lyle E.
Strom granted the motion, in part.  The Judge said according to
Birge's filings and the reasonable attorneys fees, the "lodestar
calculation" is as follows:

     Legal          Reasonable   Hours
     Professional   Fee          Worked      Total
     ------------   ---------    ------      -----
     Bragg             $300       37.4     $11,220.00
     Car               $275       26.6      $7,315.00
     Reinbrecht        $250       34.85     $8,712.50
     Carter            $125        0.5         $62.50
                                           ----------
        TOTAL                              $27,310.00

"Birge's attorneys seek costs of $1,405.336 for filing and service
fees and out-of-state counsel travel. These are necessary,
reasonable costs, and necessary to prosecute the claims of the
class. These costs will be allowed," Judge Strom added.


CELESTICA INC: Ontario Superior Court Certifies Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP, class counsel in the Celestica securities class
action, on Feb. 19 disclosed that the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice has granted the plaintiffs leave to proceed with claims
under the Securities Act and certified the class action for those
statutory claims.  The plaintiffs seek $300 million on behalf of
investors for alleged misrepresentations in Celestica Inc.'s
public disclosure.

In granting leave to proceed, the Ontario court concluded there
was a reasonable possibility that the plaintiffs would succeed at
trial on their allegations that the defendants misrepresented the
progress, timing and costs of Celestica's 2005 restructuring:
"there is enough on the record to suggest that there is a
reasonable possibility that having regard to what the Defendants
knew about their customers, the nature of supply and demand, and
their own facilities and capabilities, their opinions or estimates
about restructuring were negligently made and therefore, a
misrepresentation."

"This is another major success for this case, the second in two
weeks", explained Celeste Poltak -- cpoltak@kmlaw.ca -- of Koskie
Minsky LLP.  "On February 3, 2014, the Court of Appeal rejected
the defendants' arguments that the action was statute barred by
limitation periods and today the Superior Court rejected the
defendants' argument that the statutory misrepresentation claims
had no merit."

The action is brought on behalf of persons who acquired Celestica
shares by either primary distribution in Canada or on the TSX or
other secondary market in Canada in the period between January 27,
2005 and January 30, 2007 and who still held those shares on
January 30, 2007.


CLARK COUNTY, IN: Faces Class Action Over Drug Court Program
------------------------------------------------------------
WIBC Indianapolis reports that the troubled Clark County Drug
Court program is now facing a federal class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 18 on behalf of eight participants
of the Drug Court program who were held in jail longer than the
court had ordered.  The suit, filed in federal court in New
Albany, names over a dozen Clark County officials, including
Sheriff Danny Rodden and Drug Court Judge Jerome Jacobi.

Attorney Michael Augustus says he is seeking monetary compensation
for his clients.  The case is expected to be heard by a judge in
the next three to six months.


CRANE CO: Jurors View Deposition of Deceased Mesothelioma Victim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair
Record, reports that jurors in Madison County on Feb. 21 were able
to hear the testimony of a mesothelioma victim which had been
video recorded a few months before he passed away.

A trial is currently underway in Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs'
court in a case brought by Tom King, Sr. of Tennessee.  Mr. King,
who had served in the U.S. Navy, died from mesothelioma on May 23,
2013, at age 71.  Before his death, attorneys recorded his
deposition on Feb. 27 and 28, 2013.

Brothers Tom King, Jr. and Brian King are now representing their
father in the lawsuit.

Crane Co., a company that allegedly supplied the Navy with
mechanical gaskets and valves, and John Crane, a designer and
manufacturer of mechanical seals, are the remaining defendants at
trial from the original list of 119 defendant companies.

Mr. King was a machinist mate for the U.S. Navy from 1959-1962 and
again from 1965-1969, serving on the USS Forrestal, USS
Tallahatchie County and the USS Hollister.  He started as an E3
fireman on the Forrestal and worked his way up to a machinist mate
first class by the time he left the Navy permanently in 1969.

He worked primarily in the engine room on each ship, but
occasionally helped in other areas of the ship when needed.

"If you're at sea, practically everything is running and it
doesn't work right," Mr. King said.  "If it breaks, we fix it."

Mr. King testified that crew members were required to refer to a
manual every time they worked on a piece of equipment regardless
of their expertise in the department.  He added that he never saw
any warning signs or anything indicating that he needed to wear
respiratory protection in that manual.  While the manuals had the
manufacturer's name on the front, he could not verify if the
manuals were generated by the Navy or the manufacturers.

"The manufacturer's name was there on the manual, that's all I
know," he said.

When replacing worn out parts Mr. King said the manual instructed
him to use specific asbestos parts, which were already provided to
him by the Navy, he said.  He said he never deviated from what the
manuals instructed, calling the required specifications the "Navy
way."

"We had a chain of command," he said.  "Remember the Navy way?
That's what we were required to do."

Recalling his work aboard the three ships he was stationed on,
King talked about his experience working with pumps, valves and
insulation.  The packing inside the valves was used as a sealant
to prevent leaks.  He said the process of replacing valves when
there was a leak wasn't always dusty because materials were damp.

However, Mr. King added that the process was difficult.

"Sometimes it was a real bear to get the packing out," he said.

That wasn't the case with when replacing gaskets in pumps, he
said.  Pumps were generally used with hot fluids, he explained, so
he had to allow them to cool off before working on them.  By then,
the components would be dry.

"These systems are hot and when we worked with hot valves, they
were isolated," he said.  "We cleared out all the water because we
couldn't work with that."

In order to replace the gaskets, Mr. King said he had to clean the
excess asbestos off the valves with a wire brush, calling it gun
metal cleaning, in order to prevent future leaking.  The cleaning
process created a lot of dust, he said.

"Anytime you're using a wire brush, it's going to have an effect
on whatever it is you are moving," Mr. King said.

Mr. King said he knew some of the valves came from Crane Co.
because the company's name was on the casing, but agreed a
majority of the valves did not come from Crane Co.

Regarding his work with insulation, he said he occasionally
repaired insulation on equipment like turbines and boilers and was
often near insulation work while repairing gaskets.  He said he
would cut out the damaged area, put in new insulation and other
coverings and paint the repair work.

Mr. King agreed that it was fair to say there were miles and miles
of pipe insulation aboard the ships.  He said most of it was
produced by Johns Manville.

During his testimony, Mr. King cautioned the attorneys
interviewing him that his memory was tainted slightly due to his
cancer treatments and reminded them that their questions involved
events from decades ago.

"I am presently taking a heavy dose of chemotherapy," Mr. King
said.  "Sometimes it's hard pressed for me to remember what I had
for supper last night."

Madison County Circuit Court case number 13-L-31


EASTMAN FOOTWEAR: Recalls Coleman Runestone Children's Shoes
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Eastman Footwear, announced a voluntary recall of about 12,200
Coleman Runestone Style Children's Shoes.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The metal rivets surrounding the holes where the shoestring is
secured on the shoes can have sharp edges, posing a laceration
hazard.

The firm has received one report of an adult who scratched or cut
his finger.  No medical attention was required.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/e1p8dJ

The recalled products were manufactured in China.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled shoes and
return them to a Big 5 Sporting Goods store for a full refund or
contact Eastman Footwear for instructions on returning the shoes
for a refund.


ETHICON INC: Judge Tosses Bellwether Pelvic Mesh Product Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the first federal bellwether trial over a Johnson & Johnson
unit's pelvic mesh product has been tossed out by the judge
overseeing the litigation.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin, overseeing nearly 13,000 cases
filed in federal court over Ethicon Inc.'s mesh devices, granted a
motion for judgment as a matter of law on Feb. 19.  Ethicon had
argued that plaintiff Carolyn Lewis failed during trial to produce
enough evidence that the design of its TVT device caused her to
have pain during sex or that a safer, alternative design was
available at the time she had it implanted in 2009.

Trial began Feb. 10 in Charleston, W.Va.

"This is a sound decision by the Court," said Matthew Johnson,
spokesman for Ethicon.  "While we are always concerned when a
patient experiences an adverse medical condition, TVT continues to
be a safe and effective option for women suffering from the
debilitating effects of stress urinary incontinence."

Ms. Lewis's lead trial counsel -- D. Renee Baggett, a partner at
Alystock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz in Pensacola, Fla., and
Tom Cartmell -- tcartmell@wagstaffcartmell.com -- co-founder of
Wagstaff & Cartmell in Kansas City,
Mo. -- did not return calls for comment.

Six manufacturers, including Ethicon, face more than 40,000
lawsuits alleging that their mesh devices, implanted to treat
urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, have caused pain
and bleeding and forced some patients to undergo surgeries to
remove the products.

Most of the litigation has been coordinated for pretrial purposes
before Goodwin.  In addition, lawsuits are pending in state courts
across the country.

Last year, a jury in Atlantic City, N.J. awarded more than $11
million to a woman in South Dakota who underwent 18 operations in
six years following implantation of Ethicon's Gynecare Prolift
device.

Headed into the first federal trial against Ethicon,
Messrs. Baggett and Cartmell pushed for sanctions, claiming the
company had lost or destroyed tens of thousands of documents
related to the files of 22 current and former employees, including
the hard drive of the former global president.  They sought
default judgments in the Lewis case and two other bellwether cases
scheduled for trials later this year.


EXPEDIA INC: Judge Tosses Hotel Room Rate Parity Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tnooz.com reports that on Feb. 18 a US judge threw out a class
action lawsuit over hotel room rate parity that had been brought
against 22 household name travel brands, including
InterContinental, Expedia, and Priceline.

The judge said there wasn't enough evidence to justify the
argument that several hotel chains and online travel agencies
(OTAs) had used "rate parity" as a conspiracy to raise prices and
restrain competition.

"Rate parity" is a term to describe agreements in which hotel
chains allow rooms to be listed on OTAs.  Hotels and OTAs agreed
to make sure there was consistent pricing across channels.

In short, consumers generally see the same rate for the same hotel
chain's room on an OTA as they do as the lowest "best available
rate" on a hotel chain's own site.

The plaintiffs -- 24 individuals across 13 states -- had made
federal and state antitrust and unfair competition claims, saying
the hotel brands' "price match guarantees" were a conspiracy to
fix prices for rooms at inflated rates for consumers.

The practice allows OTAs to essentially buy rooms from the hotels
and resell them to consumers while hotels in effect control the
resell rates, the plaintiffs asserted.

Wrote US District Judge Jane Boyle in Dallas:

"True, both the hotel and OTA defendants would benefit from the
elimination of price competition in the sale of hotel rooms
online.

But these 'common motives' just as well explain why hotel
defendants (because each wanted to control online prices for its
own rooms) and OTA defendants (because each wanted an assurance
the minimum price it must publish would not be undercut)
individually entered into [resale price maintenance] agreements.

According to the complaint, the rate parity guarantees prevent
companies such as Skoosh.com, a UK travel booking site, from
entering the market and attempting to gain share by discounting
room prices below the price matches as a loss leader.

Just because defendants' rational business interests can be recast
in a suspicious light does not mean the allegations actually
suggest a conspiracy was formed."

In other words, the travel brands are just competitors in an
incestuous business, according to the judge.  There was no actual
e-mail or phone call proof that, say, Marriott and Hyatt were
colluding to fix room rates.

The lawsuit combined several suits filed last year that targeted
travel brands such as Sabre's Travelocity, Expedia, Orbitz, and
Hilton, among others.


EXPEDIA INC: Travel Cos. to Pay $60+MM if Tax Suit Appeal Fails
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that seven of the
country's largest online hotel booking websites have agreed to pay
the District of Columbia more than $60 million in disputed sales
tax and interest -- if the companies lose their appeal of a trial
judge's decision finding them liable.

The District accused the online travel companies -- Expedia Inc.,
Hotels.com LP, Hotwire Inc., Orbitz LLC, priceline.com,
Travelocity.com LP and Travelscape LLC -- of failing to pay the
proper amount of local taxes.  City officials claimed the
companies were unlawfully paying taxes based on discount rates
they negotiated with hotels, instead of the higher rates they
charged consumers.

A D.C. Superior Court judge sided with the city in September 2012,
finding the travel companies were liable for unpaid taxes. The
travel companies plan to appeal the ruling, but in the meantime
reached an agreement with the District on what they would owe if
they lost.

Many details of the settlement are confidential, but the $60.9
million sum includes agreements between the parties on what the
travel companies owed in monthly sales taxes from as far back as
1994, plus interest.

For instance, Hotels.com would owe $10 million, plus interest, in
sales taxes from February 1994 through March 2011.

Lawyers for the District and six of the companies, not including
Priceline, filed court papers on Feb. 21 asking the court to
approve the agreement.  The city reached a separate agreement with
Priceline, which it plans to file with the court soon, but the
amount is included in the $60.9 million figure announced on
Feb. 24.

"This case sends the message that the District will vigorously
enforce its tax laws and that all corporations, no matter their
size or industry, have to pay their fair share of taxes," Attorney
General Irvin Nathan said in a statement.  "I look forward to
defending on appeal the trial judge's determination that the
online travel companies owe the District back taxes for these
hotel room sales."

Mr. Nathan said the agreement announced on Feb. 24 would "spare
the District time and expense of litigating" damages, assuming the
appeals court upholds Iscoe's 2012 ruling.

Williams & Connolly has represented the defendants as a group.
Partner John Villa -- jvilla@wc.com -- declined to comment.

Individually, some of the travel companies have also hired
separate counsel: Kelly Hart & Hallman of Fort Worth, Texas is
representing Travelocity; McDermott Will & Emery is representing
Orbitz; and Jones Day is representing Hotels.com, Expedia, Hotwire
and Travelscape.


FAIRWAY GROUP: Bernard M. Gross Law Firm Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. on Feb. 19 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of those
who purchased the securities of Fairway Group Holdings Corp.
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with Fairway's April 17, 2013
initial public stock offering.

If you wish to discuss this action, serve as lead plaintiff or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Deborah R. Gross or
Susan R. Gross at 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 or via email at
debbie@bernardmgross.co or susang@bernardmgross.com

The firm has expertise in prosecuting class actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  Any person who
purchased the securities of Fairway pursuant to the April 17, 2013
IPO may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel
of his choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

Fairway was founded in 1933 and is headquartered in New York,
New York.  The complaint charges Fairway, certain of its officers
and directors and the underwriters of the IPO with violations of
the Securities Act.  At the time of the IPO, the Company had
adopted an expansion plan it was then implementing to open
hundreds of new stores to expand the Fairway chain to 300 stores
nationwide.

On or about September 24, 2012, Fairway filed with the SEC a
Registration Statement on Form S-1, which would later be utilized
for the IPO following several amendments in response to comments
by the SEC.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Registration Statement failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts, among others, which existed at the
time of IPO: (i) that the Company's operating and management
structure were not capable of effectively running its expanding
business; (ii) that the Company had millions of dollars of
redundant costs built into its budget; (iii) that competitive
pricing pressure from grocery chains like Whole Foods and Trader
Joe's was negatively impacting same store sales trends and profit
margins; and (iv) that the terms of a new store lease in the
Chelsea section of Manhattan, were not financially viable.

Following the disclosure of multiple quarters of disappointing
financial results following the IPO, several of the underwriters
downgraded the Company's stock ratings and at the time of the
filing of this lawsuit, Fairway stock was trading at under $8 per
share, a decline of more than 37% from the IPO price of $13.00 per
share.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this Notice or rights or interests with respect to
these matters,


        PLEASE CONTACT: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
                        Susan R. Gross, Esq.
                        Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
                        Telephone: 866-561-3600 (toll free)
                                   or 215-561-3600
        E-mail          susang@bernardmgross.co  or
                        debbie@bernardmgross.com
        Website:        http://www.bernardmgross.com


FEDEX CORPORATION: Court Heard Oral Argument on Kansas Wage Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Kansas Supreme Court on November 5, 2013, heard oral argument
related to the classification of the plaintiffs as independent
contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act, according to FedEx
Corporation's Form 10-Q filed on dated December 19, 2013, with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter
ended November 30, 2013.

FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits
(including 30 that have been certified as class actions),
individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative
proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should
be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors.
Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December
13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all
outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the
owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee).

According to FedEx Corp., "In sum, the court has now ruled on our
summary judgment motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx
Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation
cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the
owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the
law of 20 states. The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of
these 20 cases. The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas
case in January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did
not make a determination with respect to the correctness of the
district court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to
the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the
plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage
Payment Act. The Kansas Supreme Court heard oral argument on
November 5, 2013. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh
Circuit remain stayed pending a decision of the Kansas Supreme
Court.

"The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Three
of those cases are now on appeal with the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, and one is on appeal with the Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit. The other four remain pending in their
respective district courts, but two of these four matters have
been settled for immaterial amounts. The court granted final
approval of one of the two settlements during the second quarter
of 2014, while the other settlement remains subject to court
approval.

"While the granting of summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground
by the multidistrict litigation court in 20 of the 28 cases that
had been certified as class actions remains subject to appeal, we
believe that it significantly improves the likelihood that our
independent contractor model will be upheld. Adverse
determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's independent
contractors, however, could, among other things, entitle certain
of our owner-operators and their drivers to the reimbursement of
certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-hour laws and
result in employment and withholding tax and benefit liability for
FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to the independent
contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators in certain
jurisdictions.

"We believe that FedEx Ground's owner-operators are properly
classified as independent contractors and that FedEx Ground is not
an employer of the drivers of the company's independent
contractors. While it is reasonably possible that potential loss
in some of these lawsuits or such changes to the independent
contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be
material, we cannot yet determine the amount or reasonable range
of potential loss. A number of factors contribute to this. The
number of plaintiffs in these lawsuits continues to change, with
some being dismissed and others being added and, as to new
plaintiffs, discovery is still ongoing. In addition, the parties
have conducted only very limited discovery into damages, which
could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff. Further, the
range of potential loss could be impacted considerably by future
rulings on the merits of certain claims and FedEx Ground's various
defenses, and on evidentiary issues. In any event, we do not
believe that a material loss is probable in these matters.

FedEx also said it is defending contractor-model cases that are
not or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation, two of
which have been certified as class actions. These certified class
actions were settled for immaterial amounts in the first quarter
of 2014. The court granted final approval of one of the two
settlements during the second quarter of 2014, while the other
settlement remains subject to court approval. The other cases are
in varying stages of litigation, and the Company does not expect
to incur a material loss in any of these matters.

FedEx Corporation (FedEx) is a holding company. The Company
provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business
services under the FedEx brand. Federal Express Corporation (FedEx
Express) is an express transportation company, offering time-
certain delivery within one to three business days and serving
markets. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (FedEx Ground) is a
provider of small-package ground delivery service. FedEx Freight
Inc (FedEx Freight) is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL)
freight services. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. (FedEx Services)
provides the Company's other companies with sales, marketing,
information technology, communications and back-office support. In
June 2012, the Company acquired polish courier company Opek Sp. z
o.o. In July 2012, the Company acquired TATEX. In July 2012, the
Company's, FedEx Express business unit, acquired Rapidao Cometa, a
transportation and logistics company.


FGL SPORTS: Recalls Children's Upper Outerwear Hoodies & Jackets
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 24, 2014
Posting date:             February 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-38085

Affected products: Children's Upper Outerwear Hoodies and Jackets

Various children's and youth's upper outerwear hoodies and jackets
with drawstrings in the hood/neck area.  Sample pictures showing
hood/neck drawstrings are attached, other products are also
involved.

FGL Sports, Ltd. is voluntarily issuing this recall to consumers
who have purchased children and youth upper outerwear hoodies and
jackets with a drawstring located in the hood/neck area.

FGL Sports, Ltd. is issuing this voluntary recall as Health
Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined that
drawstrings located in the hood/neck area poses a strangulation
hazard to children.  Drawstrings on children's upper outerwear can
become caught on playground equipment, fences or other objects and
result in strangulation, or in the case of a vehicle, the child
being dragged.

Neither FGL Sports, Ltd. nor Health Canada has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of these products.

An unknown number of the recalled products were sold at Sport
Chek, Sports Experts, National Sports and Intersport stores.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
2011 to February, 2014.

Companies:

  Distributor     FGL Sports Ltd.
                  Laval
                  Quebec
                  Canada

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
hood/neck area to eliminate the hazard.


FORD MOTOR: Product Liability Plaintiffs Can Seek Retrial
---------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that the
Georgia Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Feb. 24 that because
Ford Motor Co. intentionally misled plaintiffs in a product
liability trial the company won in 2009, the plaintiffs will get
another chance to try the case.

"If this case is to teach any lesson, it is that the civil
discovery process is supposed to work to allow the parties to
obtain the information they need to prove and defend their cases
at trial before impartial juries," Justice David Nahmias wrote in
a 58-page opinion.  "Discovery is not supposed to be a game in
which the parties maneuver to hide the truth and relevant facts,
and when a party does intentionally mislead its adversary, it
bears the risk that the truth will later be revealed and that the
judgment it obtained will be re-opened to allow a new trial based
on the truth."

The information at issue had nothing to do with evidence about the
Ford Explorer the plaintiffs' claimed caused the death of one
person in a 2006 rollover crash and the traumatic brain injury of
another person.

Instead, Ford got into trouble for how it answered a question
about whether it carried insurance to cover a verdict against the
company.  The question is asked so that potential jurors who also
hold policies with a defendant's insurers may be screened for
conflicts of interest.

Ford had said only that it would be able to pay any verdict, but
its lawyers acknowledged in a separate case that it held insurance
policies -- leading to new trials or sanctions in three cases,
including the one decided on Feb. 24.

The company issued a statement on Feb. 24 saying, "Ford is
disappointed with the Georgia Supreme Court's decision, but
remains confident that it will once again convince the jury that
it is not responsible for the accident at issue in this case.
While Ford respects the Court's decision, at no point did Ford
take any actions that were misleading, as we believe the record in
this case demonstrates."

Ford's lawyers include former Georgia Attorney General Michael
Bowers -- mbowers@balch.com -- of Balch & Bingham, Adam Charnes --
Acharnes@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of Kilpatrick Townsend &
Stockton and Michael Boorman and Audrey Berland --
aberland@huffpowellbailey.com -- of Huff Powell Bailey.

Robin Frazer Clark, who represented the plaintiffs during oral
arguments in October, said the opinion may well have an effect on
future discovery answers.  "It doesn't absolutely directly apply
to other cases, but I hope defense attorneys will say we need to
review it and not do that," she said.

The high court's decision upheld an order for a retrial by Cobb
County State Court Judge Kathryn Tanksley.  She granted a new
trial after information came to light in another Ford Explorer
rollover crash case.  Judge Tanksley declared a mistrial in that
case after Ford's defense counsel announced that the answers they
had given to questions about insurance coverage were incorrect.
That case ultimately settled.


FORGE GROUP: Bentham IMF to Fund Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Stuart McKinnon, writing for The West Australian, reports that
aggrieved shareholders of collapsed contractor Forge Group have
been invited to be part of a class action against the company, its
former directors and management.

Bentham IMF announced on Feb. 20 it would fund a legal claim
against the company on behalf of shareholders, with law firm
Slater & Gordon running the action.  The claims relate to alleged
misleading and deceptive conduct and alleged breaches of the
company's continuous disclosure obligations in relation to the
troubled West Angelas and Diamantina power station projects, which
eventually led to the Forge's demise.

IMF said between November 28 last year and January 29 this year,
Forge announced three profit write-downs and earnings guidance
downgrades relating mainly to problems with the two power station
contracts, which together led to a fall in the company's market
capitalization of more than AUD300 million.

The action will allege Forge knew or should have known about, and
disclosed, problems with the two power station contracts from
early 2013.  It will also claim Forge misled the market in its
three downgrade announcements by stating that lender ANZ had
waived covenants and confirmed ongoing support, without disclosing
that this was conditional on Forge securing an injection of fresh
equity.

IMF said the decision to proceed with the action would depend on
the size of the claim being sufficiently large.

"Shareholders who purchased shares in Forge after January 1 last
year and who held some or all of those securities at any time
between November 4 last year and February 11 this year (although
this period may ultimately be shortened or extended) may be
eligible to participate in the claim," IMF said.

Forge collapsed earlier this month under AUD700 million of debt
after big blowouts and delays on two power station projects.  The
collapse of the former market high flyer has already cost about
1500 workers their jobs and left shareholders, contractors and
other creditors staring at big losses.

Before its collapse, the ASX had queried the company about whether
price-sensitive information about project losses and updated
profit guidance had been released in a timely manner.  Forge's
response to the questions were released to the market on February
3 with the company calling a trading halt on its shares on
February 11 and immediately calling in administrators after
financial backer ANZ Bank withdrew its support for the company.

Administrators were set to host the first meeting for Forge
creditors in Perth on Feb. 21.  Receivers confirmed that Forge
managing director David Simpson had been dismissed.


HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: California Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Lawyer reports that DLA Piper has achieved a victory for Sabre
in a putative class action brought by a passenger of Hawaiian
Airlines accusing the company of sending unsolicited text
messages.

Judge Stephen V Wilson of the US District Court for the Central
District of California ruled that the text message plaintiff
Shaya Baird allegedly received was not actionable under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) because the plaintiff
voluntarily provided her phone number.

Judge Wilson dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, ruling that the
plaintiff expressly consented to receiving a text from Sabre when
she booked flights online for herself and her family on the
Hawaiian Airlines website and entered her mobile phone number.

The court, after discussing in detail orders issued by the US
Federal Communication Commission in 1992 and 2008 interpreting the
'consent' requirement, held that '[u]nder the FCC's definition, it
is undisputed that Baird "knowingly release[d]" her cell phone
number to Hawaiian Airlines when she booked her tickets, and by
doing so gave permission to be called at that number by an
automated dialling machine'.

Plaintiffs have repeatedly argued that the TCPA requires explicit
language informing consumers that when they provide a mobile phone
number, that provision constitutes express consent to receive
calls made by an autodialer.  The first and last time this
argument was accepted was in Mais v Gulf Coast Collection Bureau,
Inc., a 2013 decision from the Southern District of Florida,
raising widespread concerns that FCC interpretation of consent
would be eroded by court decisions.

The Baird decision followed the FCC interpretation and should
substantially resolve concerns that Mais could be a bellwether of
change in the law.  Indeed, Baird goes far in rendering Mais an
outlier decision that, at most, applies only to its specific
facts.

The DLA Piper team representing Sabre was led by Joshua Briones --
joshua.briones@dlapiper.com -- Ana Tagvoryan --
ana.tagvoryan@dlapiper.com -- and Esteban Morales --
esteban.morales@dlapiper.com -- in the firm's Los Angeles office.


IEC ELECTRONICS: Responded to SEC Probe & Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
IEC Electronics Corp., filed a response to a now formal
investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
relating to the Company's restatement of its financials and other
matters, and the Company is responding to an amended complaint in
a now consolidated shareholder class action, according to the
Company's Form 8-K dated December 13, 2013, filed with the SEC on
December 19, 2013.

As reported in its Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2102 ("Fiscal 2012") and its Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended December 28,
2012 ("Q-1 2013"), the Company restated its consolidated financial
statements for Fiscal 2012, the interim fiscal quarter and year to
date periods within Fiscal 2012 and Q-1 2013.

In connection with the restatement, the Audit Committee conducted
an independent review of the underlying facts and circumstances,
the Company is responding to a now formal investigation by the
staff of the SEC relating to the restatement and other matters,
and the Company is responding to an amended complaint in a now
consolidated shareholder class action originally filed June 28,
2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the Company and its CEO and CFO seeking
unspecified compensatory damages. While the Company believes the
complaint is without merit, it is too early to determine the
potential outcome.

IEC Electronics Corp. (IEC) is a provider of electronic contract
manufacturing services (EMS) to advanced technology companies. The
Company specializes in the custom manufacture of circuit cards and
system-level assemblies; an array of cable and wire harness
assemblies, and precision sheet metal components. The Company
utilizes automated circuit card assembly equipment together with a
manufacturing stress testing methods. The Company manufactures a
range of assemblies that are incorporated into many different
products, such as military and defense systems, transportation
products, wireless communication systems, and medical systems and
instruments. On December 17, 2010, IEC acquired the assets of
Southern California Braiding Co., Inc. Its wholly owned
subsidiaries include IEC Electronics Wire and Cable, Inc. (Wire
and Cable), IEC Electronics Corp.-Albuquerque (Albuquerque) and
Southern California Braiding, Inc. (SCB).


LOUISIANA: Contaminated Building Suit Gets Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a state District Court judge has
granted class action status to a lawsuit that claims contaminants
sickened workers when the Louisiana Department of Revenue was
housed for more than 20 years at a former Sears department store
building in Baton Rouge.

Lewis Unglesby, attorney for five plaintiffs named in the initial
lawsuits, told The Advocate that he hopes the ruling by state
District Judge Janice Clark will encourage the state and
Olshan-WS Associates -- which owned the former store on Florida
Boulevard and leased it to the revenue department from 1979-2001
-- to begin settlement talks with the plaintiffs.

Nearly 300 current and former state employees who worked at the
building have filled out forms complaining of health problems
allegedly associated with the old building, Mr. Unglesby said
during hearings while Judge Clark was considering the request for
class action status.

"I think it (the class) will be higher than that (300).  Those are
the ones who came forward initially," Mr. Unglesby.  "You would
anticipate it would expand."

Several present and former employees testified at the hearing that
their exposure to contaminants resulted in respiratory problems,
asthma and allergy-like symptoms such as runny noses, itchy and
watery eyes, sneezing, coughing and headaches.

Attorneys for the state and Olshan-WS Associates objected to any
class action certification, arguing at hearings that there is not
a common causation for the alleged injuries.

The company and state attorneys contend smoking, workplace and
household dust and other factors could have caused the injuries
alleged by the plaintiffs.

Judge Clark issued her ruling on Feb. 19, saying class action
certification was "well founded."

Attorneys for the state and Olshan-WS Associates could not be
reached for comment on the judge's decision and whether they will
file an appeal.


MONITRONICS INT'L: "Mey" Bid to Compel Discovery Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
IN RE: MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., TELEPHONE CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT LITIGATION, MDL NO. 1:13-MD-2493, (N.D. W.Va.)
is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Diana Mey's Motion to
Compel Discovery, filed on November 14, 2013. Defendants
Monitronics International, Inc. and UTC Fire & Security Americas
Corporation, Inc. filed responses on December 3, 2013. This matter
was referred to Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull by United States
District Judge Irene M. Keeley on November 15, 2013.

Ms. Mey filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of Ohio County,
West Virginia, on May 11, 2011, alleging violations by Defendants
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section
227, and its implementing regulations adopted by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). Plaintiff seeks certification of
this action as a nationwide class action. The case was removed to
the United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia by Defendants
on June 24, 2011.

Magistrate Judge Kaull finds that the information Ms. Mey has
requested regarding Monitronics' and UTC's other authorized
dealers is relevant to Ms. Mey's claims that the Defendants, or
their agents, violated the TCPA provisions prohibiting telephone
solicitations to those whose telephone numbers are listed on the
Registry. This finding is in accord with rulings in other lawsuits
alleging substantially similar violations of the TCPA, he said.
For this reasons, Ms. Mey's Motion to Compel is granted, ruled
Magistrate Judge Kaull.  Defendants Monitronics and UTC are
ordered to serve adequate and complete responses within 30
calendar days following entry of the Court's Order/Opinion.

In accord with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), Ms. Mey will submit
and serve on counsel of record for both Monitronics and UTC its
claim for "reasonable expenses," if any, including attorneys'
fees, necessitated by the conduct of the party and/or party's
attorney which necessitated the filing and prosecution of the
subject motion to compel within 14 days following entry of this
Order/Opinion. Monitronics and UTC will have 14 days following the
filing of Ms. Mey's claim to file any written objections they may
have to the reasonableness of the claimed expenses. Only in the
event Ms. Mey files a claim for expenses and Monitronics and UTC
timely object, will the Court schedule "an opportunity to be
heard" hearing on the reasonableness of the fees and costs
claimed, Magistrate Judge Kaull concluded.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Kaull's January 28, 2014 Order/Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/pcZSJZfrom Leagle.com.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: June Trial Set in Student-Athletes' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that a class action
challenging the National Collegiate Athletic Association's
long-standing rules barring student-athletes from cashing in on
their names and likenesses is barreling toward trial.

Considering cross-motions for summary judgment at a hearing on
Feb. 20, U.S. District Chief Judge Claudia Wilken said she does
not expect to issue an order for either side that will knock out
the case.  A class of current and former college athletes, who
played on Division I men's football and basketball teams between
1953 and the present, argue that NCAA policies, which bar them
from striking group deals to license their names and likenesses
for use in video games and television broadcasts, violate
antitrust laws.

NCAA lawyer Glenn Pomerantz -- Glenn.Pomerantz@mto.com -- of
Munger, Tolles & Olson told Judge Wilken that the players' claims
are doomed because their games are events of public interest that
are shielded by free speech protections.

"If it is not commercial speech, and it's a matter of public
interest, then the First Amendment trumps the individual rights,"
he said.

But Judge Wilken questioned why the games may be broadcast
exclusively by one network if they are a matter of public
interest.  "That's where your parade of horribles goes wrong," she
said.

Arguing for the plaintiffs, Michael Hausfeld slammed the NCAA's
attempt to quash the players' right of publicity.

"It's a total circle," he said of the NCAA's argument.  "The
circle is that there is no economic value to your right because
you don't have any right, and you don't have any right because we
tell you you don't have a right."

Judge Wilken certified a class of student-athletes in November but
refused to approve a subclass of plaintiffs seeking damages in In
re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, 09-
1967.

Mr. Hausfeld told Judge Wilken that the plaintiffs seek an
injunction to stop the NCAA from preventing the players from
claiming a share of the licensing revenue.  The plaintiffs
previously proposed that universities could place licensing
revenue in a fund to be paid to players after they graduate.  But
Mr. Hausfeld advocated a more open-ended approach at the hearing.

"We're asking for the prohibition of the restraint, and then the
market would determine how that plays out," Mr. Hausfeld said.

Mr. Pomerantz tried to convince Judge Wilken that the NCAA's
policies actually promote competition.  If players were promised a
share of licensing revenue, they would be drawn to universities
with splashy athletics programs, putting small colleges at a
disadvantage, he argued.

"It's basic economics here," Mr. Pomerantz said.  "More and more
of the most talented athletes will follow the money."

Mr. Pomerantz also argued in court papers that the NCAA's
long-standing amateurism model has helped colleges strike a
balance between sports and education for student-athletes.

But Mr. Hausfeld claimed the NCAA's rules have done little to
level the playing field among colleges and even less to reinforce
the bond between athletics and academics.

"We're talking about a restraint that is imposed for profit-
maximizing purposes," he said.

Barring a settlement, the parties are set for trial in June.


NAVISTAR: Recalls 64 Trucks Due to Brake Issues
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           64
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014049
TC ID number:             2014049
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14501

On certain vehicles, brake s-cam bracket assemblies on the
steering axle could fracture, causing an inoperative brake on the
affected wheel end.  This could cause the vehicle to pull to one
side while braking and/or increase stopping distances, increasing
the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will affect repairs.

Affected products:

  Maker             Model          Model year(s) Affected
  -----             -----          ----------------------
  INTERNATIONAL     9900             2012, 2013
  INTERNATIONAL     PROSTAR          2012, 2013
  INTERNATIONAL     LONESTAR         2012, 2013
  INTERNATIONAL     WORKSTAR         2013
  INTERNATIONAL     PAYSTAR          2012, 2013


NAVISTAR: Recalls 47 Durastar and Terrastar Trucks
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Engine
Units affected:           47
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014047
TC ID number:             2014047
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14505

Certain vehicles destined for emergency vehicle applications and
equipped with Maxxforce 7 V8 diesel engines may have been
configured inappropriately.  Software intended to protect the
engine may not have been permanently disabled at time of
manufacture and could be inadvertently re-enabled through
servicing.  Under certain conditions, unintended engine power de-
rating and/or shutdown could emergency response operations and put
the public at risk.

Dealers will update engine software to disable engine shutdown
protocols.

Affected products:

  Maker             Model        Model year(s) affected
  -----             -----        ----------------------
  INTERNATIONAL    DURASTAR       2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
  INTERNATIONAL    TERRASTAR      2012, 2013, 2014


NEW JERSEY: Bridgegate Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Alston, writing for Law360, reports that the plaintiffs in
a putative class action filed in the wake of New Jersey's
"Bridgegate" controversy asked a federal judge on Feb. 19 to
certify a class of more than a million commuters and businesses
that allegedly suffered because of the politically motivated lane
closures.

In a brief supporting its motion for certification, the plaintiffs
argued a class action suit was the best way to handle the suit
filed against the state of New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie, the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and several Christie
Administration and Port Authority executives, because of the sheer
number of potential class members, which would include all of the
918,888 residents and 106,754 businesses of Bergen County, N.J.,
in addition to 105,000 EZ-Pass commuters who travel eastbound on
the George Washington Bridge, the target of September's eastbound
lane closures.

That affected class, which totals just mere than 1.1 million
potential class members, does not include the commuters who pay
cash to travel eastbound over the bridge, or the thousands who
commute to work in greater Fort Lee, N.J., area, the target of the
lane closures, suspected to be political retaliation against
Fort Lee's Mayor Mark Sokolich.

A class action is also the most efficient manner to litigate the
manner because of the similarity of the claims, the brief said,
arguing Bergen County residents, businesses and commuters were
intentionally harmed by the unnecessary lane closures.

The named plaintiffs filed suit in January, including six Fort
Lee-area commuters, three companies -- including Liberty News Inc.
along with one of its newspaper delivery drivers -- and two hourly
employees of the plaintiffs' attorney, Rosemary Arnold.

The suit is one of two putative class actions filed over the lane
closures, which caused extreme traffic delays in Fort Lee between
Sept. 9-13.

State officials had blamed the lane closures on a traffic study,
but records show Christie associates were involved in the plans
and the response to inquiries that ensued.

The governor himself has denied involvement.

The plaintiffs in the federal action are represented by Rosemary
Arnold.

The case is Zachary Galicki et al., v. State of New Jersey, et
al., case number 14-cv-00169, in the U.S. District Court, District
of New Jersey.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 16,550 Consumer Off-Road Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Alexander, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Polaris
Industries is recalling 16,550 of its consumer off-road vehicles
because the throttle cable could melt, causing a rider to lose
control of the four-wheeler.

The recall covers some but not all of the Medina-based firm's 2013
model year Polaris Ranger 500 EFI and Ranger Crew 500 EFI off-
highway vehicles.  The vehicles were sold from June 2012 through
Feb. 2014 at prices ranging from $9,300 to $11,000.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said it was possible
for the throttle cable to melt on the vehicle's exhaust pipe and,
as a result, fail to operate properly.

"This can cause the rider to lose control, posing a crash hazard,"
the commission said in a statement.  One such incident has been
reported to Polaris.  The driver was thrown from the vehicle, and
suffered minor scrapes.

The affected model numbers for the Ranger are R13RH50AG,
R13RH50AH, R13RH50AM and R13RH50AR.  The affected model numbers
for the Ranger Crew are R13WH50AG, R13WH50AH, R13WH50AR and
R13WH50AX.

The vehicle identification numbers, or VINs, of the recalled
vehicles are between 4XA******DE210149 and 4XA******DE791730, but
not all vehicles within that range are included in the recall.
The VIN is stamped on the front lower frame rail of the vehicle on
the driver's side.

Consumers can call Polaris toll-free at 888-704-5290 or contact
the company online at tinyurl.com/n4qx7yf


RICK'S NY: Court Has Jurisdiction Under CAFA Over NYLL Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
In SABRINA HART and REKA FUREDI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and the New York Rule 23 Class,
Plaintiffs, v. RICK'S NY CABARET INTERNATIONAL, INC., RCI
ENTERTAINMENT (NEW YORK), INC., and PEREGRINE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendants, NO. 09 CIV. 3043 (PAE), (S.D. N.Y.), the named
plaintiffs bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., and a putative class action under
New York Labor Law (NYLL) Sections 190 et seq. & Sections 650 et
seq. The Court has advised counsel that it is weighing whether to
resolve the FLSA claims first; afterwards, the Court would decide
whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL
claims. The Plaintiffs have taken the position that the Court
would independently have diversity jurisdiction over the NYLL
claims under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d) (CAFA), such that, in the event the federal claims are
resolved ahead of the NYLL claims, the NYLL claims would
necessarily remain in this Court for resolution. Defendants argued
otherwise. Although the issue of CAFA jurisdiction need not be
resolved now nor for as long as the Court chooses to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL claims, the parties have
thoughtfully briefed this issue, and the Court has elected to
address it now, inasmuch as it may bear on future case management.

District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer concluded that, based on the
present record, it has independent jurisdiction under CAFA over
plaintiffs' NYLL claims.  However, in the event that the federal
claims are resolved ahead of the NYLL claims and that the Court
has determined not to continue to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the NYLL claims, the Court may permit a motion
to remand those claims if later-developed facts call into question
whether jurisdiction under CAFA exists.

This decision does not preclude defendants, on a fuller record,
from making a new application later in the case, said the Court.

A copy of the District Court's January 28, 2014 Opinion & Order
is available at http://is.gd/noyX0Efrom Leagle.com.


ROUSE'S ENTERPRISES: Insurers Obtain Favorable Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
ROBERT TICKNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROUSE'S ENTERPRISES, LLC,
SECTION "E", Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-1151, C/W NO. 12-2964,
(E.D. La.) was filed on May 7, 2012, alleging that in April and
May 2012, the plaintiffs each purchased groceries from Rouse's,
the operator of a chain of local grocery stores. The Plaintiffs
allege they used their personal credit cards for these
transactions and that Rouse's failed to truncate the expiration
dates when it issued receipts for those transactions. Plaintiffs
claim other individuals have had this same experience at Rouse's
stores across Louisiana and Mississippi, and thus seek to have
this case certified as a class action.

Before the Court are motions for summary judgment filed by
insurers Evanston Insurance Company and Starr Indemnity &
Liability Company. Evanston asserts the allegations against
Rouse's are for its willful violations of FACTA, and thus coverage
is excluded. Starr's motion for summary judgment is almost
identical to Evanston's motion.  In addition to lodging the same
arguments as Evanston, Starr also contends it is relieved from
providing coverage for claims of which Rouse's was aware during
the policy period under the "fortuity doctrine."

Rouse's opposed Evanston's and Starr's motions. Robert Ticknor,
Matthew Russell, and Daniel Cutler, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, also filed oppositions to Evanston's
and Starr's motions.

In a Feb. 20, 2014 Order and Reasons available at
http://is.gd/hkr0YJfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Susie Morgan
granted Evanston's and Starr's requests.


ROYAL BANK: Settles MBS Class Action for $275 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
Max Colchester, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Royal Bank of Scotland Group on Feb. 19 agreed to pay $275 million
to settle a class-action suit that alleged the state-controlled
bank misled investors who bought mortgage-backed securities.

In a statement, the bank said it has agreed to a settlement with
New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund et al. subject to
documentation and court approval.

The bank had already planned for the payout as part of a recently
announced GBP1.9 billion provision.

The case relates to more than $15 billion of the issued mortgage-
backed securities which the plaintiffs alleged were sold despite
not meeting underwriting guidelines.


SPI ELECTRICITY: Victoria Residents Ignored Warnings, Court Told
----------------------------------------------------------------
9News reports that Victorian residents ignored warnings to
evacuate as bushfires approached on Black Saturday, a court has
heard.

Assistant Commissioner Steve Fontana has told a Victorian Supreme
Court class action between bushfire victims and SPI Electricity of
his actions as the fires raged across the state in February, 2009.
Mr. Fontana said Assistant Commissioner Bob Hastings, who was in
charge of operations near the Kilmore East fire, told him that
police requests for people to evacuate their homes had been
ignored.

"Police had gone out into the community and asked people to leave
and they then refused to leave," Mr. Fontana told the court on
Feb. 20.

"Then later they would have to go back and deal with it when
people had died."

The class action, led by Victorian woman Carol Matthews, is
claiming SPI was negligent in failing to maintain the power lines
that sparked the fire.  Class action members are also suing the
CFA, police and the Department of Sustainability and Environment
over their failure to warn communities.

The hearing continues.


SUN VALLEY: Recalls Shredded Cheese Products Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Castle Cheese Inc.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Consumer

Castle Cheese Inc. is recalling Sun Valley and Castle brand
shredded cheese products from the marketplace due to possible
Listeria contamination.  The affected products were sold at The
Grocery People, 945 Laval Crescent, in Kamloops, B 87.  Consumers
should not consume the recalled products.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness.  Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk.  Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the company.  The Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.  If
other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

Affected products:

   -- 80 g Packed for Sun Valley Fresh Foods Shredded Dairy
      Product made with Parmesan with Before 15JA28 code;

   -- 2.27 kg Castle Brand Shredded Dairy Product made with
      Cheddar Cheese with Best Before 14JL28 code


TREX COMPANY: Received Final Court OK to Settle Suit for $8.25MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc., on December 16, 2013, received final court
approval to settle a nationwide class action lawsuit alleging
certain misrepresentations and defects in the Company's first-
generation composite products relating to mold growth and color
issues, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated December 18,
2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 18, 2013.

Trex Company said that the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted final approval of a settlement
agreement that resolves a nationwide class action lawsuit filed in
California alleging certain misrepresentations and defects in
Trex's first-generation composite products relating to mold growth
and color issues. The settlement agreement, the claim resolution
process and class notice are available for review at
http://www.trex.com/legal/2013classactionsettlement.aspx

Under the terms of the settlement, Trex will provide to qualified
claimants a one-time cash payment or the opportunity to receive
other relief, including a rebate certificate on its newer-
generation shelled products (Trex Transcend(R) and Trex
Enhance(R)). This relief is available for any qualified claimant
who purchased first-generation Trex composite product between
August 1, 2004 and August 27, 2013 having a certain level of mold
growth, color fading or color variation, and who meets certain
other requirements as set forth in the settlement agreement. The
cost to Trex under the settlement is capped at $8.25 million plus
$1.475 million in attorneys' fees to be paid to the Plaintiffs'
counsel.

In addition, Trex agreed to discontinue the manufacture of non-
shelled composite products (Trex Accents(R)) by December 31, 2013,
provide a video demonstrating cleaning instructions for non-
shelled composite products on its website, and distribute warranty
pads to retailers.

The Company denied any liability in the settlement and agreed to
the settlement in order to avoid additional expensive, time
consuming litigation.

Trex Company, Inc. manufactures and distributes wood/plastic
composite products, as well as related accessories, primarily for
residential and commercial decking and railing applications. The
majority of its products are manufactured in a process that
combines waste wood fibers and reclaimed polyethylene (PE
material). The Company offers a set of maintenance product
offerings in the decking, railing, porch, fencing and trim
categories. The Company markets its decking products under brand
names, including Trex Transcend, Trex Accents and Trex Escapes.
Its two railing products are Trex Transcend Railing and Trex
Designer Series Railing. During the year ended December 31, 2011,
the Company introduced Trex Transcend Porch Flooring and Railing
System, which is an integrated system of porch components and
accessories. During 2011, the Company offered two fencing
products. On May 2, 2011, the Company completed the acquisition
Iron Deck Corporation.


U.S. EQUITIES: District Court Dismisses "Snyder" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles J. Siragusa dismissed the complaint
captioned PAIGE MARIE SNYDER, fka THOMAS A. SNYDER, Plaintiff, v.
U.S. EQUITIES CORP., LINDA STRUMPF, HAL SIEGAL, RON WEST, ALEX
SHAFRAN, WING LAM, JOHN DOE, Defendants, NO. 12-CV-6092 CJS, (W.D.
N.Y.).

This is an action purporting to assert claims under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), New York General Business Law
Section 349, and New York Judiciary Law Section 487. The action
also purports to assert a New York common-law claim for malicious
prosecution.

According to Judge Siragusa, the Plaintiff failed to commence this
action within one year of discovery of the FDCPA violations.
Consequently, the FDCPA claims are dismissed as untimely.
The Court also found that the Complaint fails to adequately plead
that the Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity.

"The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining supplemental state-law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367(c)," Judge Siragusa ruled.  "[The Plaintiff is
advised that the statute of limitations governing her state-law
claims will be tolled for a period of thirty days, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1367(d)."

Section 1367(d) ensures that the plaintiff whose supplemental
state claim is dismissed has at least thirty days after dismissal
to refile in state court.

A copy of the District Court's January 28, 2014 Decision and Order
is available at http://is.gd/TJXNPefrom Leagle.com.


VCG HOLDING: PT's Exotic Dancers Mulls Suit Over Tips & Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Patrick, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
two exotic dancers for the PT's chain of strip clubs are trying to
get approval for a class action lawsuit to represent hundreds of
colleagues who may feel cheated on a decade's worth of
compensation.

The suit, filed in federal court here Jan. 31 by Missouri
residents Brandy Apple and Amanda E. Sheer, says that dancers at
PT's and other clubs owned by VCG Holding Corp. receive no hourly
wages and depend solely upon tips from "table, chair, couch, lap
and/or VIP room dances."  The suit also says they are forced to
share their tips with managers, disc jockeys and other employees.

The complaint alleges that the arrangement boosts the company
bottom line at the expense of the dancers, violates the law and is
contrary to the "vast majority" of past lawsuits over the issue,
in which courts have found dancers must be paid a minimum wage.

The suit says no legal exceptions apply that would allow VCG to
pay dancers this way.  The dancers are not professionals nor
artists and the dancing does not require "invention, imagination
or talent in a recognized field of artistic endeavor," the filing
says.

"Plaintiffs, like all other dancers, do not have the opportunity
to exercise the business skills and initiative necessary to
elevate their status to that of independent contractors," the suit
says.

There is no training and only a minimum level of skill is
required, the suit says.

Dancers' only control is what to wear, within a range set by the
company, and how provocatively to dance.

Tips cannot be used offset the required minimum wage, the suit
complains, unless employees keep all the money.

The class action could consist of as many as 300 women who have
worked at the clubs in the past decade; 20 to 40 women work for
each club each day, according to the lawsuit.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Placed $61.2MM Settlement in Escrow on Nov. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc., on November 5, 2013, deposited
approximately $61.2 million of the $95.0 million settlement
consideration into an escrow account for the settlement
consideration in the consolidated shareholder securities class
action, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on December 19,
2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2013.

On or after December 4, 2007, several securities class action
claims were filed against the Company and certain of its officers,
former officers, and a former director. These lawsuits were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California and are currently captioned as In re VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, C 07-6140 EMC. The original
actions were: Eichenholtz v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-
6140 EMC; Lien v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195 JSW;
Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6197 VRW
(Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this complaint on March 7,
2008); Feldman et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6218
MMC; Cerini v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC;
Westend Capital Management LLC v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al.,
C 07-6237 MMC; Hill v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238
MHP; Offutt v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW;
Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW.

According to the Company, "On August 22, 2008, the court appointed
plaintiff National Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its attorneys
lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class
action complaint on October 31, 2008, which asserts claims under
the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and SEC
Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control person liability
against us and certain of our current and former officers and
directors, based on allegations that we and the individual
defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding
our business and operations during the putative class periods, and
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. We filed our
motion to dismiss on December 31, 2008. The court granted our
motion on May 26, 2009 and dismissed the consolidated amended
class action complaint with leave to amend within 30 days of the
ruling. The proceedings were stayed pending a mediation held in
October 2009 at which time the parties failed to reach a mutually
agreeable settlement. Lead plaintiff's first amended complaint was
filed on December 3, 2009 followed by a second amended complaint
filed on January 19, 2010. We filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint and the hearing on our motion was held on May
17, 2010.

"In July 2010, prior to any court ruling on our motion, lead
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint on the basis that it had newly obtained evidence.
Pursuant to a briefing schedule issued by the court we submitted
our motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and lead
plaintiff filed its opposition, following which the court took the
matter under submission without further hearing. On March 8, 2011,
the court ruled in our favor and dismissed the consolidated
securities class action without leave to amend.

"On April 5, 2011, lead plaintiff filed its notice of appeal of
the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. On June 24 and June 27, 2011, lead plaintiff
dismissed its appeal as against defendants Paul Periolat, William
Atkinson, and Craig Bondy. Lead plaintiff filed its opening brief
on appeal on July 28, 2011. We filed our answering brief on
September 28, 2011 and lead plaintiff filed its reply brief on
October 31, 2011. A hearing on oral arguments for this appeal was
held before a judicial panel of the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2012.
On December 21, 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion
reversing the district court's dismissal of the consolidated
shareholder securities class actions against us and certain of our
officers and directors, with the exception of the dismissal of
lead plaintiff's claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

"On January 4, 2013, we filed a petition for en banc rehearing
with the Ninth Circuit. On January 30, 2013, the Ninth Circuit
denied the petition for rehearing. On February 8, 2013, the Ninth
Circuit issued a mandate returning this case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California for further
proceeding on lead plaintiff's claims, except for the dismissed
Section 20(a) claim.

"On August 9, 2013, we entered into a stipulation of settlement in
this consolidated shareholder securities class action with and
among the other defendants and the lead plaintiff therein. The
settlement is subject to various customary conditions, including
preliminary approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, notice to class members, class member opt-
out thresholds and final approval by the court. If the settlement
becomes final, the total settlement consideration paid for the
benefit of the settlement class would be $95.0 million, plus a
potential contingent adjustment.  We have coverage from our
insurance carriers for this settlement consideration in the amount
of approximately $33.8 million. The net amount of approximately
$61.2 million (excluding the contingent adjustment) would be paid
by us. On October 15, 2013, the court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement. The hearing on final
approval of the settlement was scheduled to be held on February 6,
2014.

"On November 5, 2013, we deposited approximately $61.2 million,
and our insurance carriers have deposited the remaining portion,
of the $95.0 million settlement consideration into an escrow
account for the settlement. We expect that, subject to the final
court approval and the maximum opt-out condition being met, the
funds in the escrow account will be released during our second
fiscal quarter ending April 30, 2014.

"The contingent adjustment provides that if we are "acquired" on
or before April 15, 2014, which is six months from the court's
order preliminarily approving the settlement, the settlement
amount would be increased by a percentage equal to the percentage
increase, if any, (i) in the case of a tender offer or merger,
between the per-share acquisition price and the closing price of
our shares on the date immediately prior to the public
announcement of the acquisition multiplied, in the case of a
transaction for less than 100% of our shares, by the percentage of
shares being acquired or sold, or (ii) in the case of the sale of
substantially all of the assets, between the total amount of
consideration received by us and our market capitalization based
on the closing price of our shares on the date immediately prior
to the public announcement of the transaction, in each case up to
a maximum increase of $7.0 million. This provision also applies if
an acquisition is publicly announced within such six month period
so long as the acquisition closes thereafter. For purposes of the
settlement, the term "acquired" means: (i) the acquisition of at
least a majority of the issued and outstanding shares of our
common stock by a third-party in a tender offer or exchange offer
or merger with us; or (ii) the acquisition by a third-party (other
than our affiliate or our stockholders) of all or substantially
all of the our assets.

"We have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims
alleged in the consolidated shareholder securities class action.
Nonetheless, we have agreed to the settlement to eliminate the
uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of further
litigation. The finalization of this settlement remains subject to
the conditions described. This settlement, when finalized, also
applies to members of the putative class of plaintiffs in the
Israel Class Action. As of October 31, 2013, we have accrued $71.2
million for this matter, which is included in Accruals and other
current liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. In
addition, as of October 31, 2013, a $10.0 million receivable was
included in Prepaid expenses and other current assets on our
Consolidated Balance Sheets, which as of such date was the
remaining amount of our insurance carriers contribution that had
yet to be deposited into the settlement escrow account. Such
amount has since been deposited into the settlement escrow account
by our insurance carriers."

VeriFone Systems, Inc., formerly VeriFone Holdings, Inc., is a
holding company for VeriFone, Inc. The Company is engaged in the
secure electronic payment solutions. It provides solutions, and
services for the financial, retail, hospitality, petroleum,
transportation, government, and healthcare vertical markets. Its
system solutions consist of point of sale (POS) electronic payment
devices that run its and third-party operating systems, security
and encryption software, and certified payment software, as well
as other third-party value-added applications. Its system
solutions are able to process a range of payment types. In June
2011, it acquired Destiny Electronic Commerce (Pty) Ltd. In August
2011, the Company acquired Hypercom Corporation. On November 1,
2011, it acquired Global Bay Mobile Technologies. In June 2013,
Verifone Systems Inc acquired Eftpos New Zealand Ltd.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Court Appointed Selz Funds as Lead Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court on October 7, 2013, appointed the Selz Funds as lead
plaintiffs and Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP as lead counsel in
the putative securities class action filed against VeriFone
Systems, Inc., alleging that the Company made false or misleading
public statements regarding its business, operations, and
financial controls in connection with the February 20, 2013,
announcement of preliminary financial results for the fiscal
quarter ended January 31, 2013, according to the Company's Form
10-K filed on December 19, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2013.

The Company states: "On March 7, 2013, a putative securities class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against us and certain of our current and
former officers alleging claims in connection with our February
20, 2013, announcement of preliminary financial results for the
fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013. The action, captioned
Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. C 13-1038, and
subsequently re-captioned In re VeriFone Securities Litigation, is
brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VeriFone
securities between December 14, 2011 and February 19, 2013, and
asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control
person liability.

"The claims are brought against us and certain of our former
officers, and are based on allegations that we and the individual
defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding
our business, operations, and financial controls during the
putative class period. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief. Two additional class actions related to
the same matter (Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone
Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 13-1676 and Bland v. VeriFone
Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 13-1853) were filed in April
2013.

"On May 6, 2013, several putative plaintiffs and plaintiffs' law
firms filed motions to consolidate these three securities class
actions and requesting appointment as lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, respectively. The plaintiffs in Laborers Local 235
Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. and Bland v.
VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed their
respective actions, without prejudice, on July 10, 2013, and July
17, 2013, respectively, and filed motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the action previously captioned Sanders v. VeriFone
Systems, Inc. et al.

"On October 7, 2013, the court entered an order appointing the
Selz Funds as lead plaintiffs and appointing Gold Bennett Cera &
Sidener LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs' first amended
complaint was filed on December 16, 2013."

VeriFone Systems, Inc., formerly VeriFone Holdings, Inc., is a
holding company for VeriFone, Inc. The Company is engaged in the
secure electronic payment solutions. It provides solutions, and
services for the financial, retail, hospitality, petroleum,
transportation, government, and healthcare vertical markets. Its
system solutions consist of point of sale (POS) electronic payment
devices that run its and third-party operating systems, security
and encryption software, and certified payment software, as well
as other third-party value-added applications. Its system
solutions are able to process a range of payment types. In June
2011, it acquired Destiny Electronic Commerce (Pty) Ltd. In August
2011, the Company acquired Hypercom Corporation. On November 1,
2011, it acquired Global Bay Mobile Technologies. In June 2013,
Verifone Systems Inc acquired Eftpos New Zealand Ltd.


WATERSTONE MORTGAGE: Motion to Reopen "Herrington" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 2011, Pamela Herrington filed a proposed class action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and state law, alleging that Waterstone
Mortgage Corporation failed to pay its loan officers for overtime
work. In an order dated March 16, 2012, District Judge Barbara B.
Crabb concluded that plaintiff's claims would have to be resolved
through arbitration under an agreement between the parties.
However, in accordance with In re D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No.
184 (2012), available at 2012 WL 36274, Judge Crabb also concluded
that the National Labor Relations Act gave plaintiff the right to
join other employees to her claims, despite a provision in the
arbitration agreement to the contrary. Judge Crabb closed the case
administratively to allow the parties to proceed with arbitration.

Now before the court is the defendant's fourth request to reopen
the case since it was sent to arbitration.  The first time, the
defendant challenged a decision by the arbitrator that the
arbitration agreement permits class arbitration; the second time,
the defendant challenged the arbitrator's order limiting
communication with potential class members; the third time, the
defendant challenged an interim award of attorney fees.

The first two requests were denied because they were premature and
because defendant failed to show that it was entitled to relief on
the merits under the applicable standard of review.  The defendant
withdrew its third request the day after plaintiff filed her
opposition brief.

In the defendant's fourth and most recent request, it asks the
court to reconsider the portion of the March 16, 2012 decision in
which it concluded that "plaintiff must be allowed to join other
employees to her case."  The Defendant relies primarily on D.R.
Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013), which
overturned the decision of the National Labor Relations Board. It
seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), which allows a court
to vacate a final judgment or order for "any other reason that
justifies relief."

"After considering the standard of review for a motion brought
under Rule 60(b)(6) and the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit and the other cases defendant cites, I am
declining to vacate the March 2012 order," ruled Judge Crabb.
"Although I acknowledge that the weight of authority developed
since that order favors defendant's view, I am not persuaded that
the answer is so clear as to justify the relief that defendant
seeks. It may be that ultimately the Supreme Court or the Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will agree with defendant, but
until that time, I will adhere to the decision of the board."

Accordingly, Waterstone Mortgage's motions to reopen the case and
reconsider the court's March 16, 2012 order are denied.

"Defendant cites the decisions of various district courts that
declined to follow the board, but none of these decisions include
reasoning that I have not considered already, so it is not
necessary to discuss these cases separately," Judge Crabb added.
"Accordingly, I am denying defendant's motion for
reconsideration."

"One final matter deserves mention," said Judge Crabb. "This case
was filed more than two years ago, which is longer than it takes
for most cases to be resolved in this court, and yet the parties
remain stuck at a preliminary stage of the case. Although I make
no comment on the reasons for the delay, it is clear that the case
has been languishing for far too long. I anticipate that when the
parties return to arbitration, they will make every effort to work
with the arbitrator to set a schedule that will allow the
remainder of the case to be resolved expeditiously."

The case is PAMELA HERRINGTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WATERSTONE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, Defendant, NO. 11-CV-779-BBC, (W.D. Wis.).

A copy of the District Court's January 28, 2014 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/V7bwK7from Leagle.com.


WBS WHOLESALE: Recalls AHS Mini-Muffins Due to Undeclared Eggs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            February 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           WBS Wholesale Bakery Specialities Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8608

Affected products:

  Brand Name      Common Name                           UPC
  ----------      -----------                           ---
  AHS          Banana Deluxe Indiv. Mini-Muffins    0 777756712005
  AHS          Pumpkin Spice Indiv. Mini-Muffins    0 777756710001
  AHS          Oatmeal-Raisin Indiv. Mini-Muffins   0 777756709005
  AHS          Fruit & Fibre Indiv. Mini-Muffins    0 777756708008
  AHS          Bran-Blueberry Indiv. Mini-Muffins   0 777756713002


WESTIN HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
---------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Valcourt, writing for WJZ, reports that days after carbon
monoxide sickened guests and workers at a hotel near BWI,
attorneys filed a class action lawsuit in the case.

The suit contends problems with equipment in the hotel's laundry
room may have sickened as many as 400 people.

When firefighters evacuated the Westin Hotel near BWI on Feb. 16,
they found dangerously high levels of carbon monoxide on every
floor, including the third floor where Merlitha McKisset spent the
weekend.  She says she started feeling flu-like symptoms on
Feb. 15 morning after sleeping soundly on Feb. 14.

Ms. McKisset checked out of the hotel on Feb. 16 before
firefighters arrived and took herself to a hospital.  At least
nine others had to be treated for carbon monoxide poisoning.

According to the class action suit, the source of that carbon
monoxide was a water heater that wasn't properly venting to the
outside.

Attorney Don Discepolo filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
Ms. McKisset and other Westin guests that weekend, faulting the
hotel for negligence.

WJZ is still awaiting a response from Westin regarding the lawsuit
but they have previously issued statements apologizing to the
affected guests and saying they would be looking into the cause of
the problem and how to ensure that it didn't happen again.

Every guest of the hotel that weekend will be contacted and could
become a part of the class action suit, which could take two to
three years to wind its way through the court system.


WILLIAM PRYM: Atty Fees & Costs Okayed in Fasteners Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge R. Barclay Surrick granted a joint petition for
award of counsel fees, payment of costs and expenses, and award of
incentive payments to the class representatives in the multi-
district litigation captioned IN RE FASTENERS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-MD-1912, (E.D. Penn.).

The Co-Lead Counsel in the case had requested $5.85 million in
attorney's fees, which represents one-third of the Settlement
Fund, and $337,667.72 in litigation costs and expenses incurred in
the prosecution of this action.

Plaintiffs Fishman & Tobin, Greco Apparel, Inc., Jolna Apparel
Group LLC, and Norman Shatz Co., U.S.A. brought this consolidated
class action on behalf of themselves and others who purchased
fasteners in the United States from Defendants from January 1,
1991, until September 19, 2007.  Plaintiffs serve as the
representatives of the class. There are three groups of Defendants
in this case: (1) the "Prym Defendants," which include William
Prym GmbH & Co. KG, Prym Consumer USA, Inc., Prym Fashion, Inc.,
Prym Inovan GmbH & Co., Prym Consumer GmbH, EP Group S.A., Inovan
GmbH & Co. KG, Prym Fashion GmbH, Prym Consumer Europe GmbH, and
William Prym Inc.; (2) the "YKK Defendants," which include YKK
Corporation, YKK Corporation of America, Inc., YKK (U.S.A.) Inc.,
and YKK Snap Fasteners America, Inc.; and (3) the "Coats
Defendants," which include Coats Holdings, Ltd., Coats Holdings,
Inc., Coats American, Inc., d.b.a. Coats North America, Coats
North America de Republica Dominicana, Inc., and Coats & Clark,
Inc.

"Under the circumstances," said Judge Surrick, "we are satisfied
that an award of $5,000 to each class representative is perfectly
reasonable in light of the duration and complexity of this
litigation. Accordingly, Co-Lead Counsel's request for incentive
awards for the class representatives will be granted."

A copy of the District Court's January 28, 2014 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/huyqZcfrom Leagle.com.


* Bill to Set Up Review Panel in Medical Malpractice Cases Passed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory A. Hall, writing for The Courier-Journal, reports that a
bill to set up review panels in medical malpractice cases passed
the Senate on Feb. 19 after more than an hour of debate on a 23-13
party-line vote.

That vote came hours after sponsor Chairwoman Julie Denton's
Health and Welfare Committee voted 7-4 to re-approve the
Louisville Republican's Senate Bill 119.

The bill would require that medical malpractice complaints be
taken to a panel of three experts -- which would say whether
proper standards for care were met -- before someone could take a
claim to court.  A change to the bill approved in committee would
make the review panel's finding inadmissible in court if new
substantial evidence were discovered after that report.

Democrats said the panels unduly restrict access to the courts for
victims of medical malpractice.  Sen. Ray Jones, D-Pikeville who
led the opposition, said the bill is "pandering" to businesses.

Denton and Senate President Robert Stivers, R-Manchester, said the
panels are not an impediment to legitimate cases of malpractice.

The bill had passed Denton's committee once before, but was sent
back by Senate leadership after Jones, an attorney, filed a host
of amendments to change the bill.  The amendments were all ruled
out of order on Feb. 19 in a contentious debate over parliamentary
procedure.

The bill has died previously in the Democratic-majority House.


* NASDAQ, NYSE File Amicus Brief in Favor of Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Mordock, writing for Delaware Business Court Insider, reports
that NASDAQ and the NYSE Euronext, the nation's two largest stock
exchanges, filed an amicus brief on Feb. 24 with the U.S. Supreme
Court in support of the Delaware Court of Chancery's confidential
arbitration program.  The stock exchanges are the first companies
to support the Chancery Court's program through amicus briefs.

"Amici believe that Delaware's confidential, expedited arbitration
procedure is an important and beneficial ADR process that ensures
that major United States and foreign companies choose to conduct
business and list securities in the United States," wrote Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati attorney and former Chancery Court
Chancellor William B. Chandler III -- wchandler@wsgr.com -- who is
representing both exchanges.

The amicus brief encouraged the U.S. Supreme Court to grant the
Chancery Court's petition for certiorari in Delaware Coalition for
Open Government v. Strine.  The Chancery Court filed the petition
seeking to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
decision declaring the confidential arbitration program
unconstitutional.

In the brief, the exchanges claimed that the Chancery Court's
arbitration program was necessary to keep Delaware competitive
with other international jurisdictions that offer similar business
dispute resolutions.

"Delaware's statutory arbitration procedure provides businesses
with another key ADR mechanism, enabling them to have certain
commercial matters confidentially resolved by judges nationally
recognized for their experience in deciding corporate and
commercial matters," Mr. Chandler said.


* Recall of Children's Products Ineffective, Report Shows
---------------------------------------------------------
Alicia McElhaney, writing for USA TODAY, reports that just
10 percent of children's products are returned or fixed during
safety recalls, according to a first-of-its-kind report out on
Feb. 18 from a children's safety advocacy group.

Such a low number of successfully recalled products means many
commonly used items that could injure or kill children likely
remain in use, according to the new report from Chicago-based Kids
in Danger.

"The return rate of recalls is really abysmal," said Nancy Cowles,
KID's executive director.  "The government makes announcements,
but people don't hear about them or don't respond."

Children's product companies and regulators wait too long to
recall products and the practice has contributed to infant and
children's deaths, the report says.  It typically takes 13 reports
of design flaws and two injuries to recall products, KID says.

A recall is a refund, repair or replacement, says Scott Wolfson,
communications director at the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Companies can choose which of the three remedies they use.

Product recalls in the report include unstable dressers, the Nap
Nanny infant recliner and baby monitor power cords.

Julie Vallese, a spokeswoman for the Juvenile Product
Manufacturers Association, says toys and children's products have
always had low recall response rates and the issue is one several
Administrations have grappled with. Household appliances tend to
have the highest rates.

The study is really looking at the wrong thing, too, says
Ms. Vallese.

"Return rates for products are a poor indicator of recall
effectiveness since a variety of factors affect how consumers
decide to respond," says Ms. Vallese, a former spokeswoman for the
Consumer Product Safety Commission.  "Many products may no longer
be in use or have already been disposed of by consumers."

Ms. Cowles thinks a lack of publicity is the larger problem.
Companies and CPSC distribute joint press releases about recalls
and companies that have websites have to post the information
online.  After that, it's up to the company to share information
about a recall on social media and through other platforms.

Children's product companies are trying to improve recall
awareness, Ms. Vallese says.  JPMA launched an education campaign
last year called "It's Not Hard To Fill Out The Card," urged
consumers to fill out the registration card for juvenile products.

"It is important to fill it out, so companies can notify a
consumer quickly and effectively if a product they have purchased
is recalled," says Ms. Vallese.

There were 63 recalls in 2013 involving companies that used a
Facebook or Twitter page within six months prior to the recall.
Of these, the manufacturer only mentioned their product recall on
Facebook in nine of those cases and the recalls were only
mentioned on Twitter eight times, the report says.

Many people say they hear of about two to three recalls per year,
when there are typically more than 100 recalls on children's
products alone made yearly, Ms. Cowles said.  In 2013, there were
113 children's products recalled.

"Research has show that consumers need to hear about recalls
multiple times before they take action," said Mr. Wolfson.

That makes social media so much more important in our mobile
society, Mr. Wolfson said.  CPSC is pressing companies to use
social media more often to make people aware of their recalls.

Charley Pereira of North Carolina became an advocate for child
safety after his 10-month-old daughter Savannah was strangled by
the cord of her baby monitor in 2010, a death that helped prompted
recalls of some monitors.  He has fought for stricter rules for
the way baby monitors are created and succeeded in stopping
companies from portraying baby monitors at an unsafe distance in
advertising.

Mr. Pereira also worked to add safety labels to products to reduce
their risks -- and the need to be recalled.  He said that many
companies are hesitant to put safety labels on products because
they believe it will make people too afraid to purchase them.

Ms. Cowles wants to see companies promote their recalls that way
they promote their products.

"I think social media is like any other tool a company has at
their disposal," said Ms. Cowles.  "They should use it in the same
way they would use it for advertising."


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *